13 JUN 20 (FORTY-FIRST article in a series)
Friday’s hearing in the government’s case against Lt. General Michael Flynn in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was an absolute travesty that exemplifies the hyper-partisan and corrupt nature of the case against Flynn and since it’s fraudulent inception. The fraud and usurpation of power should surprise no one, though, as both are mechanisms being leveraged by the Left redundantly throughout the four-year effort to unseat this President. The hearing devolved as soon as Judge Robert Leon Wilkins, an Obama appointee, opened his mouth.
The Mason Jar
</> Near full account of the 12 Jun 20 Flynn hearing in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
</> Point of contention: Judge Sullivan’s refusal to grant a Rule 48 dismissal without exploring the government’s prosecutorial prerogatives in extra-constitutionally (there is no rules provision allowing amicus appointment at the district level; on the appellate level.)
</> Examining Sullivan’s authority to appoint amicus germane to the government’s right to pursue dismissal according to Rule 48
</> Court being asked to enforce a writ of mandamus that would compel Sullivan to dismiss the case according to Rule 48
With this series of articles now at forty and growing, I have to leave it to new readers to catch-up mostly on their own. The subject matter here is just too deep, entangled and encompassing to recapitulate it with each new article.
If you are new please consider seeing HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS at the bottom: hypothesis, team update, disclaimers, graphics and timeline. NEW: UNDERLYING POSITIONS (important contextual backdrop for full understanding)
*The graphics are very helpful in consuming large quantities of information succinctly.
One quick note to move forward – this article captures a nearly 2-hour hearing that delves into the minutia of very complex legal issues. It’s a hearing – that means the same points are going to be revisited and hammered home redundantly and that’s important to acknowledge. This articles captures much of that discourse so please expect it to read differently. As a result, there is redundancy throughout in what you read. It’s also important identify and pay attention to the subtle differences found in the context of points being argued. Analytical and important points are found in bold/italics. Truthfully, listening to the entire hearing was absolutely fascinating. Let’s get to it.
It’s important to recall why Flynn was in court on Friday to begin. In short, the government has agreed to drop the case against Flynn and obviously Flynn is not opposed to that. Rather it’s Clinton appointed Judge Emmet Sullivan in his extra-constitutional position with a bone to pick here. Sullivan has refused to grant the motion to dismiss the case (critical for understanding.)
To help folks consume and understand the complexity of what unfolded in this hearing, our analog for it will be a classic heavyweight boxing match that is for the title and with all stakes on the line; and only because that’s exactly what it is.
There will be some important recurring terminology to keep in mind – things like Rule 48, Article II, Article III, writ of mandamus, amicus curiae brief, etc. that underpin the arguments and make the discourse technical and obtuse for most folks. Our goal is to shine light on important aspects of it and make it consumable for meaning while still giving granular detail.
Roughly midway through the hearing, we get confirmation as to why our boxing analogy is the best example to explain all of this. That confirmation is rooted in the adversarial or 2-sided nature of the US justice system and that point came to bear during the hearing and in ways that were very revealing.
Specifically and as is with the Flynn case, the adversarial nature of the justice system creates two sides in a federal criminal case: the prosecution (the government) v. the defendant (the individual.) In the criminal case against Flynn criminal, it should be noted that Flynn (defendant) is represented by his counsel Sidney Powell.
It’s important to note here that Flynn’s trial is essentially over at this juncture. The government has decided to drop its case under Rule 48 but Judge Sullivan has refused to grant the motion to dismiss. Sullivan’s decision keeps Flynn’s case mired in litigation until at least the next hearing, which is scheduled for 16 Jul.
Friday’s hearing was conducted with both the government and the defense asking the court to enforce a writ of mandamus to compel or force Sullivan to grant the Rule 48 dismissal. This represents a highly unusual and suspicious set of circumstances worthy of severe scrutiny.
Sullivan’s extra-constitutional and overtly hyper-partisan; if not corrupt, appointment of amicus to the court to explore extra-constitutional sentencing for Flynn has fundamentally altered the landscape and trajectory for Flynn’s trial.
Given these highly unusual circumstances, the Department of Justice assigned top appellate attorney Jeffrey Wall as its representative at Friday’s hearing. Ironically, these circumstances forged Wall and Powell, the two traditional adversarial parties, into one force arguing against Sullivan, his attorney Beth Wilkinson and Sullivan’s insistence that he has legal standing to act as he did in this case – refusing to dismiss it in favor of welcoming Clinton appointed Judge John Gleeson’s brief, which ultimately informed Sullivan that he could assume the role of the prosecution and consider whether to sentence to Flynn for contempt or perhaps other charges.
Understand the basics here: governments prosecute, defendants defend and judges oversee the trial applying applying the law and rules (appropriate application of legal statutes) to essentially referee it all. The court’s only constitutional role here is to serve as a venue to adjudicate the claims (the trial) between the two parties. The judge’s role is limited and serves to ensure that the adjudication of the case aligns constitutionally. Period. Sullivan is extending his role beyond its constitutional scope to appoint the amicus and consider extra-constitutional sentencing for Flynn. He can’t do that but that’s what he’s doing.
What does that tell you? It tells me two things and namely that the government must absolutely 1) have a case against Flynn that will result in charges for the purpose of 2) ensuring that in no capacity is Flynn positioned to rejoin the Trump administration. The allegations that the court is corrupt (Judges Henderson and Wilkins) are heavy but appropriate.
So, with Flynn and the government fighting, Sullivan is the referee. Let’s apply our boxing analog further and then immediately depart from it because that’s where we are and the ramifications for it are enormous.
In one corner, we should have the government and its case against Flynn. That’s one half of the adversarial relationship. In the other corner we should have Flynn/Powell. They’re the other half. This is not the case for the Friday hearing, though.
Instead, there’s a third corner, folks, and in it is Sullivan and his attorney, veteran Democratic trial lawyer Beth Wilkinson. Sullivan’s extra-constitutional steps to appoint amicus allowed him to insert himself into the ring as a fighter while also maintaining his role as the referee (judge.) Moreover, in this hearing, Judge Wilkins argues that Sullivan’s actions were underpinned and justified by legal precedent. How can that be?
Let’s put all of that on hold for a moment but it’s important to understand as we begin because that’s how today’s hearing started – with 3 sides instead of 2. Normally and according to regular order, the matter before the judges would be between the government and the defendant. Not in this completely anomalous case, though. Here, Sullivan has used his amicus curiae brief maneuver to co-opt the Flynn trial and insert himself a vested third party seeking extra-constitutional prosecutorial authority outside of Article II of the US Constitution. Like I said, there’s a third corner now and Sullivan is in it as a fighter (and a referee!)
Exactly how many cases has the US EVER seen – EVER – with circumstances akin to what has been described above? The answer is a precise ZERO. Never, ever, in the history of the entire US system of justice has a case like this manifested where a judge refuses to grant a Rule 48 dismissal insisting that not only the trial continue, but that he may stand to sentence the defendant in the assumed role of the government and outside of Article II. What does that tell you? EVERYTHING.
Let’s pick-up with Powell’s opening remarks and she starts off by entirely making the case throwing Constitutional haymakers.
Powell immediately identifies the gravity of this case relative to the Executive branch’s ability to function within its constitutional authority and without undue interference (referred to as Executive prerogative), “We are here now to stop further impermissible intrusion into the sole power of the Executive Branch under the Take Care clause to decide to dismiss a case and what circumstances warrant that dismissal.” Powell, continues citing the incredibly extensive and comprehensive case they have made supporting their positions. In doing so, she cites US Attorney Jeffrey B. Jensen and the extraordinary exculpatory evidence that came to light through his work as predicated on his 10 years at the FBI on top of his 10 years as a US attorney assigned by AG Bill Barr to review this case.
Powell describes the Flynn case as the “quintessential case for mandamus” (an order that compels a lower court to take action and in this case the action is for Sullivan to grant the prosecution’s motion to dismiss Flynn’s case according to Rule 48, which provides the prosecution with this sole Article II authority for dismissal.
Powell argued that, “We have both issues of judicial usurpation of Executive prerogative (whether or not to dismiss) and a clear abuse of discretion (whether to extend his authority outside the Constitution to sentence Flynn); the judge has no authority to do anything further in the case or examine the Executive’s determination to dismiss the case.”
At this point, Wilkins begins engaging with Powell and the corruption begins to reveal itself right away. As he pushes back citing the Rule 48 motion and citing legal precedence and specifically Rinaldi v. United States, he cites that the Supreme Court has ruled that the court has a role (ability to appoint amicus) germane to Rule 48 (the government’s sole preoperative to prosecute or dismiss.)
Citing Rinaldi v. United States, Wilkins questions Powell on whether she believes the Supreme Court got it correct in saying that the Court has a role relative to ‘leave of court’ considerations in light of jurisdiction; other in other words, did the authority to take action (appointing amicus) actually fall to Sullivan? He cited the court’s position to not presume the government’s case (meaning that Sullivan doesn’t have to accept the government’s position without a full understanding as to why it decided that way) to dismiss (Rule 48) and therefore retained a right to ask questions relative to Article II and the government’s sole prosecutorial discretion.
This is pure political conjecture on Wilkins’ part. Only the Executive ie. the DOJ can weigh the willingness to prosecute; NOT SULLIVAN; and again, it’s an Article II matter. Just imagine what courts would be like – the corrupt political nature – if judges were able to directly determine who is prosecuted and who is not. It controverts separation of powers at a fundamental level. Wilkins doesn’t care. Neither does Henderson.
Powell establishes a fundamental aspect of her case as it relates to Rule 48 (power to dismiss.) Therein, she argues that the court can ONLY consider the documents/evidence submitted before it meaning the case at hand and all of its materials, documents, evidence, testimony, etc. In that regard, Powell agrees with the court and its right to the appointment of amicus; although it’s literally unprecedented, but ONLY in the sense that the court can only examine the full case that exists before it and nothing beyond that. Sullivan’s position to appoint the amicus to address matters is beyond that scope yet it’s still supported by Wilkins. He retorted that the court CAN consider documents beyond that scope but it’s without merit and clearly counter to Article II ie., more political maneuvering.
Powell’s position is the right one as Sullivan should NOT be extending himself (his court) into extra-constitutional territory by investigating new possibilities or ASSUMING the role of prosecutor to add additional charges not filed by the government. Understand that judges and courts don’t file charges – prosecutors do. That is unless a judge has USURPED that authority. Sound familiar?
In essence, what Powell is saying is that Sullivan doesn’t have the authority to be in the ring as a fighter. Moreover, he’s actually there as both a fighter and a referee. Nonetheless, he’s in there and not only is he fighting against both of the legitimate contenders – the two traditionally adversarial parties – but he’s forcing them to fight when they’ve both decided not to.
Powell is saying he needs to exit the ring, remove his trunks and gloves, put his robe back on and grant the Rule 48 dismissal. He should do that just as every judge ever before him has done and exactly so.
Article III provides that absent a case or controversy in front of the court; meaning that if both sides (prosecution and defense; not the bench/judge) of our boxing match agree not to fight then there is no case or controversy, accordingly, Sullivan is not permitted to extend the case beyond the prosecution’s Article II authority to prosecute. Ergo both he government and Flynn are asking Sullivan to call-off the fight by means of granting the motion to dismiss under Rule 48.
With Powell asserting Articles II and III as being in contention, the Flynn case represents a clear separation of powers case with drastic impact on the office of the Executive (the President.) The importance of this can’t be overstated given the role of legal precedence, which is being established here. Legal precedence affects all future, similar cases ergo the Flynn case could predispose the Executive branch to future undue influence moving forward.
But Sullivan, our referee, is disregarding the Constitutional rights and authorities of both respective parties/fighters, and insisting that they continue to fight. Here, Sullivan is well beyond the scope of his authority and outside of his jurisdiction to do anything further.
Wilkins directly asks Powell if she believes Sullivan’s refusal to grant dismissal under Rule 48 were sufficient standing for her to file for mandamus, which is an extraordinary maneuver anomalous to regular order. Ruling to enforce mandamus would compel or force Sullivan to act on the motion to have the case dismissed by granting the Rule 48 motion.
In this case, Wilkins is leveraging the court’s (Sullivan’s) authority to consider evidence and documents outside the scope of what has been submitted to it – the current and full Flynn case presented by the government – to justify further and extra-constitutional action by Sullivan. Hold on to that point – it’s critical.
Sullivan is not permitted to consider something that’s not already in front of him as a part of the Flynn case and this applies to his amicus appointment. Moreover and monumentally important in all of this is the following – Sullivan’s amicus appointment is extra-constitutional because there is no rule provision for it at the district level! Translated, the rules of our boxing match don’t allow Sullivan to appoint this amicus under these circumstances. Again, hold on to that because it demonstrates that Sullivan is acting politically; not judicially.
Powell retorts by arguing that the legal precedent doesn’t allow the court to consider anything beyond what is already on record – or in other words that same current and full Flynn case as presented by the government. Considering anything outside of that, which Sullivan’s amicus most certainly does, is outside of regular order, extra-constitutional and literally unprecedented.
Wilkins came right back at Powell asking her if the Supreme Court got it wrong in Rinaldi and Thompson (another case with legal precedence. He’s pressing her with no standing.
Powell returns to the fundamental point they all seem to discard – that the court may ONLY independently review (amicus) the case in front of the court. Then she struck severely citing the record that’s on file and the extensive and comprehensive nature of it, which includes evidence of prosecutorial misconduct and deliberate suppression of Brady evidence, which is exculpatory evidence or evidence ‘helpful’ to and benefiting the defendant and which can drastically alter the fact set of an entire case. As Powell points out, it amounts to enormous governmental misconduct as much as she states there is absolutely no authority for Sullivan’s amicus appointment.
Powell followed it up with this – and it does NOT get much more consequential. She said, “Not a single case in the country has ever affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss under 48A.” She’s saying that Sullivan’s decision not to grant the dismissal according to Rule 48 is an instance of a first time in US history. Let that settle in for a moment before it gets worse.
Again Wilkins discards the application of the original scope standard and tells Powell to just let it all play out and then come back to make those arguments on appeal. Now recall, delaying, obfuscating and interfering with the Flynn trial for 4 years is all this has been about. This entire Eric Holder/Lawfare Group/Covington Burling LLC construct (ie. the entire Flynn case travesty) has been entirely about targeting Flynn first for prosecution and removal from the Trump administration and then wittingly and deliberately delaying the case as mired in litigation with unsound practice. Here Wilkins is telling Powell to just wait it out? Need I point out the duplicity? It’s an invitation to one’s own funeral.
Powell went right back after him saying that he Sullivan doesn’t have the legal authority to, in fact, let it play out and by doing so it’s merely a matter of “delaying the inevitable and going through an inordinate process in doing that.” That ‘inordinate’ process is by design. That’s the objective. Duplicity!
She continues in that Flynn’s case represents “the most impressive motion to dismiss (under Rule 48) I’ve ever seen in decades of practice and the most well-documented.” Again, couple that statement with the fact that this has NEVER happened before in US HISTORY.
Enter Judge Karen Henderson, a Bush appointee. Henderson argues that the motion could be granted in the mid-July hearing that Sullivan has scheduled. Again, this notion is rooted in waiting for a hearing (delaying by design) that Sullivan doesn’t have the authority to hold.
Powell immediately lines it that out properly citing the amicus appointment as going far beyond the scope Sullivan’s authority as a member of the Judicial branch into the prerogatives of the Executive branch vis-a-vis the DOJ Article II and III authority. Powell is identifying the fundamental separation of powers aspect here.
Stunningly, Henderson agrees with Powell and immediately brushes over it to push what appears to be an emerging political angle. She said, “I realize that but you also know that the courts have said he’s not merely a rubber stamp either.”
Powell, “If Judge Sullivan had denied the motion to dismiss on this record, we would be entitled to mandamus right now.”
Henderson, “Why can’t we hold this in abeyance and, uh, let’s see what happens on July 16th.”
Powell, “Because the damage continues to accrue by the day because he has no case or controversy before him and no jurisdiction because he doesn’t have the authority to go do what he’s trying to do or has done. “He didn’t even have the authority to appoint the amicus under Justice Ginsberg’s decision.”
Powell, then hammers home another prevailing matter in everything we’ve seen – the usurpation of power. In this instance, Powell argues that Sullivan doesn’t have the authority to assume the government’s position and continue a case by failing to grant its motion for Rule 48 dismissal. Consequently, it amounts to JUDICIAL USURPATION.
The Trump appointed Judge Neomi Rao then asks about appointing amicus as applicable to contempt charges and again Powell hits back with whether or not judge Sullivan “stays in his own lane” meaning that he doesn’t have the authority to appoint amicus to prosecute contempt against Flynn. Again, it’s extra-constitutional. Again, according to Article II, prosecution is the sole prerogative of DOJ, not Sullivan or any other court or judge. Again, according to Article III, there is on case or controversy because both adversarial parties are asking for the Rule 48 dismissal to be granted.
Further, Powell argues that contempt can’t be leveled against Flynn for his withdrawing his guilty plea and therefore there is no basis to appoint amicus to inform the court on prosecuting contempt even though a Supreme Court decision allows for it in certain circumstances.
Powell then outlines the meat and potatoes of her case: Article II, Sect. 3 states that the Government is the only entity with authority to prosecute as compounded by gross prosecutorial misconduct: 3 yrs of suppression of exculpatory evidence, FBI fabricated statements included in 302s, Priestap/McCabe conversation about coercing Flynn into lying – ‘what is our goal here?” and an absolutely concocted case presented by the FBI and with help form the DOJ.
Powell continues to reiterate, as good attorneys do, that there is no justification to appoint amicus beyond the government’s case and by adhering strictly to the government’s case before the panel of judges, there is no other viable legal path forward other than granting the 48A motion for dismissal. Powell argues this because of the presumption of regularity that attaches to the case. The presumption of regularity simply means that when a case is adjudicated, all parties expected it to be adjudicated without unexpected twists, turns, applications of law, etc., ie. “regular order.”
That said, we draw back on Powell’s basis – never in a court anywhere has a judge denied granting a Rule 48 dismissal. Wilkins then outlines two issues of plausible impropriety under review and asks Powell whether one or both must be evident to justify enforcing the writ of mandamus before the court (forcing Sullivan to grant the Rule 48 dismissal): 1) not granting the motion (48a) and 2) appointing the amicus to do anything.
Resolutely, Powell said that either one is grounds to enforce mandamus, but in this case, it’s actually both.
Citing legal precedent, Henderson then returns to the court’s ability to appoint amicus. Powell argues back that although amicus appointment is standard practice at the appellate level, it’s extra-constitutional at the district court level in criminal cases. This is because there is no rules provision for it. There is literally no rule in the US code that allows Sullivan to appoint amicus at the district level. He did it anyway.
Let’s translate that because it has enormous constitutional implications. The Flynn criminal case and Sullivan’s court occur at the district level. That is where cases are tried and sentences are handed down. That’s also different that an appellate court. In an appellate court, where the hearing was on Friday, the defendant’s case has already been tried and possibly even the sentence handed down. A party would be in appellate court to seek some relief from rulings handed down at the district level. In an appellate court, amicus appointment is allowed by the rules but in a district court, those rules don’t even exist. Get it?
With the above in mind, it’s as simple as this. As a district level judge, there is no rule for Sullivan to file for an amicus appointment and therefore it’s entirely discretionary, entirely unprecedented in US history and entirely extra-constitutional. When Sullivan appointed the amicus at the district level, it represented a wholesale shift in the fundamental aspects of how district courts function.
Translated into boxing jargon, it sounds like this. Sullivan, sitting in his own court as the referee between the government and Powell, threw-out the rules for boxing (prevent him from appointing amicus) and embraced the rules for kickboxing (a different sport with a different set of rules and which permits amicus appointments.) In other words, Sullivan changed the rules to accomplish a political objective.
Wilkins pushed Powell on the authority of a district level judge being able to appoint amicus despite no rule existing for it at the district level. Powell acknowledged that although it is highly irregular, it is permissible but only in position to support one of the parties; and not to assume the role of the government to extend a prosecution. That last point is immensely important.
Wilkins attempts to corner Powell by asking if amicus appointment would be appropriate if it weighed-in on the side of Flynn (to support one of the parties as Powell outlined above) and she retorts saying Gleeson’s amicus appointment functioned to appoint as a special prosecutor (Sullivan.) Re-read that. Sullivan’s appointment of amicus to explore extra-constitutional sentencing for Flynn on contempt or possibly other charges arises to the level of Sullivan assigning himself as a special prosecutor outside of the US Constitution. See Robert Mueller for an explanation of how special prosecutors work. Notice a pattern with these folks?
At this juncture, Wall enters arguments on behalf of the government. He immediately zeroes in on the precise problem – an issue of separation of powers that is “stark and concrete here.” It builds on Powell’s special prosecutor position such that any further consideration of the fact set beyond the case in front of the court would represent an intrusive fact inquiry into prosecutorial decisions that are solely Article II preoperatives of the government.
In such a foreseen process, Walls rightfully argues that the government (read that as the Executive or the Trump administration) would be compelled to defend itself by presenting evidence and arguments whereas circuit law compels Sullivan to grant the Rule 48 motion to dismiss and avoid this altogether. Again, it’s back to Sullivan appointing himself as special prosecutor via amicus. All of this is designed to harm the Executive in a hyper-politicized moment in time.
Judge Henderson then argues that the 16 Jul hearing should stand for the sake of preserving regular order alone. That’s absolute nonsense given that regular order was completely discarded when Sullivan leveraged amicus to appoint himself as special prosecutor and Powell’s argued exactly that. Duplicity! Corruption! Hyper-partisan! Politically motivated! Oxymoronic.
It was at this point that the entire proceeding was hijacked by Wilkins in infuriating fashion. Inexplicably, Wilkins decided to engage Wall on a hypothetical exploration of the relative points by means of a scenario whereby a white officer was accused of excessive and unwarranted violence against a black defendant under arrest. Allow me to translate. Wilkins said, “Hey, let’s talk about how they killed George Floyd and derail this entire hearing.”
I won’t give Wilkins any more time on this – it was absolutely appalling. You can listen to the entirety of it in the linked hearing or see the piece The Gateway Pundit put out on it.
Wilkinson then enters arguments on behalf of Sullivan. She is asking Flynn to gamble on the 16 Jul hearing date because there’s no indication “at this time” that the Rule 48 motion for dismissal won’t be granted. She then continues to say; however, that if additional evidence were discovered in the Article III case or controversy (that Sullivan has created out of thin air with his amicus ruling and which would compel the government to defend itself in an evidentiary process) that any evidence deriving from that process could be used to sentence Flynn, per the amicus brief, after 16 Jul.
Do you see the legal trap there? Do I need to actually point that out? These ingrates are sinister – who takes that gamble with full understanding of the preceding 4 years? Only a bona fide idiot takes that deal.
Wilkinson then tries to argue that their point is that the court (Sullivan) ONLY set a briefing schedule and has a hearing set for 16 Jul – there is nothing more to it and there will be no evidentiary process as the government (Wall) has claimed, rather the court (Sullivan) is only getting advice to inform his decision on whether to grant the Rule 48 dismissal.
This is nothing short of flawed circular logic. Sullivan deployed a process for which there is no rule permitting it (amicus appointment at the circuit level) and that process created an unprecedented cloud of uncertainty around his authority to do so because it controverts the US Constitution.
Wilkinson then builds on that arguing that the judges in front of them can not grant the mandamus in contention because of the lack of a rule that would provide clarity on it. What? Yeah, it’s flawed circular logic designed to obfuscate the entire matter – create confusion with A, cite that confusion as B and then tell the court it can’t do C because of confusion with A and B. Insanity! Duplicity!
Wilkison claims that “all that’s happening here” is that the judge has called in the prosecutor to ask questions just like circuit courts do all over the country. This is patently untrue and it’s the conflation of two entirely universes. Judge Rao comes back in that spirit reaffirming Powell’s position that the appointment of an amicus germane to Rule 48 at the circuit level is literally unprecedented (rules don’t permit it.) There has never been another case like it – ever.
Wilkinson attempts to root her argument in support of the amicus ruling functioning to inform ‘an adversarial position.’ Remember though, the court is the venue for the trial and the only two adversarial positions are the defense and the prosecution. This brings us full circle and here, Wilkinson is actually insisting that Sullivan – our referee and judge – is a adversarial party or a fighter in the ring. She’s creating the third corner out of thin air.
Rao blisters Wilkinson by delineating the position accurately and according to regular order whereby the adversarial positions are recognized as the state v. the defendant.
Stunningly, Wilkinson then takes her gloves off and demonstrates the true motivation in the entire Flynn case. “Here, the government and Mr. Flynn are lying,” she says. Further and in this case here, Wilkinson states that Sullivan it’s recognizing his “authority of the court trying to understand the opposing arguments.”
Then Wilkinson doubled-down on allegations the likes of which Flynn’s counsel never made against the government. “Just like here, your Honor, the government and the petitioner are lying and the district court was brought-in to argue the other side.” And there you have it – special interest stacked-up against the Constitutional rights of Mr. Flynn such that Sullivan can leverage the amicus ruling presented by Gleeson and utilize it to sentence the defendant in extra-constitutional fashion; and all designed to guarantee that the Flynn case continues to be mired in litigation or worse yet, the defendant unconstitutionally sentenced.
Wilkinson states that, “the district court thinks this motion under rule 48 should be denied.”
Wilkins then comes back to his white officer/black defendant hypothetical scenario so as to set-up Wilkinson for a verbal foray down that path. Wilkinson accepts and takes the racially charged, highly politicized and grossly irresponsible and inappropriate hypothetical scenario and uses it as way to backdoor her way into leveraging authority for Sullivan to sentence Flynn on his own accord and outside of it’s judicial authority, which is solely possessed by the Executive via Article II.
Powell is given a brief moment to conclude and she immediately goes back to suppressed exculpatory evidence as underpinned by demonstrated prosecutorial misconduct and states that the Rule 48 motion should be granted on all counts.
In his concluding remarks, Wall warns us that the courts are not supposed to go down the very road Sullivan has his court on and in fact, he states that “the train should not even leave the station” as it relates to fundamental aspects of constitutionality and specifically, Articles II and III and the separation of powers issues at hand.
As it now stands, with Wilkins and Henderson siding with Sullivan and Rao siding with Flynn, the apparently corrupt US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has forced Flynn and Powell to wait until the 16 Jul hearing at which time Sullivan will decide to grant or deny the Rule 48 dismissal or perhaps pursue some other continued extra-constitutional avenues. For now, we wait to hear from Powell to understand next steps.
Until then, Judge Sullivan serves as an unconstitutional third fighter stirring up a full-on constitutional donnybrook in a ring he has no business entering.
You’d think that a judge would know the difference between a fighter and a referee and would adhere to that with fidelity, as judges are required to do. Understand that Sullivan actually and fully knows this, but for whatever reason he (Is he compromised? Does Obama’s Project H.A.M.M.E.R. have dirt on him like we expect with others?) seems determined to fight and not only against Flynn, but against the sole constitutional authority of the US federal government and in a capacity that does not exist by rule or precedent anywhere in US history.
Flynn first! As goes Flynn, so goes the country and for the time being, 16 Jul looms large if not fateful.
Contents: Underlying Positions, Hypothesis, Team Update, Disclaimer, QAnon disclaimer, Timeline, Graphics
*Please find related graphics and images and the timeline at the bottom.
*If you are brand new, there are two recommendations as to where to begin catching-up and they are posted at the very bottom – one shorter than the other.
AN IMPORTANT NOTE ROOTED IN APPRECIATED READER FEEDBACK: Please consider that the Making the Case for Treason sub-series is deliberately much more granular and comprehensive and therefore more burdensome to consume. It is NOT presented for fast uptake like a Twitter thread. That would be grossly irresponsible and entirely inappropriate and inadequate given the implications, consequences and ramifications of what we are asserting herein. That said and for full understanding, these articles are recommended to be consumed old-school style: sitting down, uninterrupted, start to finish and repeated until understood.
By design, this isn’t causal reading. My prior experience as an investigator and history teacher drive the approach and it is one rooted in preparing summary findings reports detailing investigations used to prosecute, arbitrate, settle, dispute, litigate, etc. The work is comprehensive and the details are granular and that’s exactly how it should be – we’re MAKING the case, which rests between talking about it and prosecuting it. Generally, it’s a demonstration of why it should be prosecuted.
All said, if you care to understand HOW and WHY the entire nation was sold-out in the worst way, those details must be fully examined to be fully understood.
- The ENTIRETY of the COVID-19 pandemic functions on a broader timetable dating back years and converges contemporaneously with Flynn, Russia, Mueller, Ukraine and impeachment, whereby all of the latter are sub-components serving the former, which it itself is a sub-component to a broader plan by decades.
- The criminality and corruption we’re seeing isn’t new – it’s decades-old planning that’s coming to manifest now and extends from the same power bases as the 9/11 false flag political construct and other events.
- Obama’s criminality dates back to the beginning of his first term when he entered office assigned with an agenda to map his counterinsurgency doctrine over the US to infiltrate all three levels of government: local, state and federal.
- Obama has been and continues to run point for a broader Globalist operation deeply entangled with the Clintons, Soros, Gates and a host of others.
- Everything unfolding from the President’s administration is the execution of a contingency plan that is calibrated to the 2020 election cycle. That election cycle becomes the immediate primary timeline over which all others are laid. We establish this because everything before and after it rests on the crux of 03 Nov 20 – election day. The other drivers here are the timeline underpinning Obama’s exit from office and its deserved severe scrutiny specific the events occurring late Dec to mid-Jan 2017.
- Everything we are seeing play-out as responsive from the Trump administration to COVID-19 is not a reaction by any means. Rather it’s reflective of steps within a pre-constructed contingency plan that was based and devised from intelligence indicating that this unavoidable (POTUS has little control over what bad actors do within the borders of it chief military, economic and diplomatic rival in China) false flag political construct was imminent. With adaptations for real world and real time considerations, President Trump is currently executing that plan, not responding to a fake pandemic. Understand that these two things exist in different universes.
- Observe the messaging and social programming (a very real thing!) – who wears masks and when do they wear them? Fauci and Birx, the true usurpers of the President’s emergency powers, wear them while the President’s people do not. Pay attention to other subtle cues – the messaging is evident. Observes the sights and sounds emanating from TV. Notice how the formula is all the same – pulling on emotional heart strings to elicit a dopamine drop to trigger brain chemistry and set to the same jingly, emotion-invoking music that parallels the sights and sounds of casino brain science. The same brain science that is being leveraged against the American people to literally brainwash them into believing that the only way to stay safe is to hunker down at home; out of fear and unable to humanely connect with other humans. In other words, it’s social programming to accept your digitally (and legally) enforced slavery. Wake-up and resist.
- President Trump wagging Fauci in front of the cameras weeks ago to force him to correct the record and own that every time he and Birx asked for anything, the President gave it to them the first time every time. HARDLY ANYONE TALKS ABOUT THIS. He’s making them own their usurpation of emergency powers on live TV. Now you know why Fauci and Birx often appear so uncomfortable and agitate when exposed to the right information. There will come a day people point specifically to that moment in time and for good cause.
- FLYNN FIRST! as covered comprehensively in the previous articles and manifesting currently with the constructive Lawfare Group/Judge Sullivan amicus curiae brief maneuver. Importantly, we content per work at CTH that was not unmasked but rather the subject of a FISA warrant before his attachment to the Trump administration. Flynn was the first prioritized target and as of this article, he remains not only that, but he’s locked, loaded and ready to fully reengage. The amicus stunt is the coup d’etat Hail Mary with likely other contingencies waiting when this fails as it ultimately will. Flynn’s deep and broad knowledge of the vast criminality at hand remains the most critical aspect and division point between the past and current administrations and Flynn as a man represents the entirety of their own undoing. FLYNN FIRST!
Hypothesis (developed over time with emerging research):
Our hypothesis asserts that this political construct was inserted into President Trump’s administration during compulsory Obama/Trump transition meetings on 13 Jan 17. That’s the same day the MSM decided to release the cooked-up Flynn/Russia story preemptively and with Flynn taking part in those meetings. Unsurprisingly, the immediate talking points from Obama administration officials and others in-the-know were about the disrupted, off-kilter, reluctant and awkward nature of the meeting. How convenient for them to build their future MSM talking points into the meeting by designing and timing those dynamics. Since the insertion point, a mountain of correlated and interconnected evidence further propels this hypothesis as represented in this growing catalog of article.
28 Mar 20 Update/Team: What used to be a looser conversational group has grown and, over the course of this pandemic, has become a small team of folks working together most of the day every day. Much of what I’m writing recently is a product of that collective work and/or my own opinion as influenced by that group. This team receives quite a bit of valuable information from the folks who read our articles and accordingly, we (I) give a special heartfelt hat tip to @Shazlandia, whom keeps me on my toes at all times; often inconveniencing herself to do it.
Disclaimer – This has now grown into a sizable series of articles on the COVID-19 coronavirus. Understand that all of this began simply with some curiosity about whom may stand to gain or benefit with the discovery of a promising treatment identified as Remesdivir – no more and no less; it’s that simple.
QAnon Disclaimer: I give much time to QAnon and for this simple reason – no matter if you believe QAnon to be absolutely real or absolutely fake, QAnon has consistently remained in front of the news cycle; with great accuracy, over time and while the MSM and other “news” outlets have consistently gotten it wrong for that same time. Yes, you have to dig to get the information but the doormats are conveniently placed in front of you if you care to enter. I care to enter.
A Word on Intent: There was never an intent to write a single article; much less a series of them. The rabbit hole into which I placed myself diverged many times over transitioning into a mess of global entanglements that converted this work from an exploratory exercise to one hunting for evidence to scaffold an hypothesis. The content, therefore, is affected and takes a different tone and direction. For deeper understanding, here is the CATALOG of all articles in this series.
Where to Start Catching-up: I have two shortcuts for new readers looking to catch-up and avoid reading from article one. The ninth article – IS COVID-19 A GLOBAL 9/11? EVIDENCE CAN BE ARRANGED TO SUGGEST A FALSE FLAG CONSTRUCT AND HERE’S HOW – served as a recapitulation as of 14 Mar 20. Alternatively, you could take a bigger shortcut and pick-up with CAUSE OF DEATH FOR SALE posted 12 Apr 20.
IS COVID-19 A GLOBAL 9/11? EVIDENCE CAN BE ARRANGED TO SUGGEST A FALSE FLAG CONSTRUCT AND HERE’S HOW
13 JAN 17 PANDEMIC CONSTRUCT INSERTION
Figures 21-26: Leaked slides from the pandemic scenario insertion on 13 Jan 17 during compulsory Obama/Trump transition meetings:
The Flynn Timeline Insert
*Embedded images sourced from Conservative Treehouse, NBC News, Fox News and QAnon and open federal sources.
Conservative Tree House presents 5 distinct phases for context to the broader construct and they bear significant relevance here:
1. 12/2015 – 4/2016: “The first phase leading into ‘Spygate’ is the period of time where opposition research of the republican candidate field was taking place. It is in this period where Fusion-GPS hired CIA Open Source researcher Nellie Ohr, wife of DOJ-NSD official Bruce Ohr, to do research.”
2. 4/18/2016 – 7/31/2016: “At the same time as NSA Director Mike Rogers discovered a significant and unauthorized uptick in FISA-702(16)(17) database queries, and subsequently blocked access (April 18th, 2016), candidate Donald Trump became the presumptive nominee for the presidential race.”
3. 8/1/2016 – 10/21/2016: “With the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence operation in full swing, the Obama intelligence community, the CIA, was conducting facilitating operations throughout. In August 2016 CIA Director John Brennan brought the covert intelligence congressional oversight team known as the Gang-of-Eight into the picture.”
4. 10/21/2016 – 1/20/2017: “The FBI received their FISC surveillance authority two weeks before the November 8th presidential election.”
5. 1/20/2017 – present: this portion is too extensive to summarize fully and include – please click the original link. In general, “Here’s where the current background of multiple issues and questions begins to make sense.” Congress is unaware of “what is taking place within the ongoing counterintelligence operation against President Trump and all those around him. Crossfire Hurricane, aka ‘Spygate’, is mostly invisible in the background. The need to put factual teeth behind a fraudulently created investigative predicate means the FBI needs to start getting serious about the investigative targets. “
Important: Pay attention for commentary in the image captions and elsewhere to give meaning as you progress.
Nov ’14: Mifsud’s first association with London Centre of International Law and Practice Limited (LCILP)
-Obama makes an apparent exception to existing policy by allowing Fauci to fund at $3.7m coronavirus research at the Wuhan lab expected of leaking the virus (SOURCE.)
October/November 2015 – Mifsud joins LCILP
22 May: Obama signs into law the new (JCPOA) Iran deal
Dec ’15: Flynn visits Russia participating in a diplomatic-styled event in Moscow celebrating the 10th anniversary of RT.
Feb ’16: Papadopoulos’ Linked-In account states he joined LCILP
Mar ’16: Papadopoulos joins LCILP (conflicts with previous entry above) as head of the Centre for International Energy and Natural Resources Law & Security; create nexus between him and Mifsud; Papadopoulos emails Trump campaign offer to arrange a meeting – “Meeting with Russian Leadership – Including Putin”
06 Mar: Senior Trump campaign official advises Papadopoulos that improving Russian relations will be a priority
14 Mar: Papadopoulos-Mifsud meet for first time
18 Mar: Obama enacted Executive Order/Public Law 113-146 changing Kennedy-era law so as to augment the process and include pandemic preparedness into transitional meetings.
21 Mar: Via the Washington Post, Papadopoulos introduced publicly by Trump campaign as one of 5 foreign advisersMarch 24, 2016 – Papadopoulos meets female Russian national for first time (‘Putin’s niece’) via Mifsud
31 Mar: Papadopoulos attends national security meeting in DC with Trump and other advisors resulting in an effort to broker a meeting with Putin and the Russians
Apr ’16: Papadopoulos emails multiple progress reports regarding Russian meeting efforts
10-11 Apr: Papadapoulos and female Russian national email to arrange foreign policy trip
11 Apr: Mifsud emails confirming the arrangement in the previous entry
18 Apr: Via email, Mifsud introduces Papadopoulos to Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs contact
22 Apr: Russian MFA emails Papadopoulos; thanks him for extensive talks and proposes London meeting
25 Apr: Papadopoulos emails Trump campaign advising of open invitation for Trump to meet with Russians in London
26 Apr: Mifsud meets Papadopoulos in London hotel and claims to have damaging information on Clinton
27 Apr: Papadopoulos emails Trump campaign about “interesting messages” and a meeting where Russia would host Trump
30 Apr: Papadopoulos thanks Mifsud for his “critical help”
May ’16: Papadopoulos-Alexander Downer (AUS) meet to discuss damaging information on Clinton
04 May: Russian MFA emails Papadopoulos about open cooperation Trump meeting
05 May: Papadopoulos has phone call with Trump campaign and forwards Russian MFA email
13 May: Mifsud emails Papadopoulos about continuing to liaise between the Russians and Trump to schedule high-level meeting
21 May: Papadopoulos emails Trump campaign about Russians being eager to meet
01 Jun: Papadopoulos emails Trump campaign; referred to Campaign Supervisor about high-level Russian meeting
09 Jun: Trump Tower Meeting with Russians
Jul ’16: Bruce Ohr advises FBI/DOJ of potentially fraudulent nature of Steele dossier; Downer provides a tip about “Trump” to Australian intelligence (Five Eyes accord); Australia (Five Eyes accord) provides Downer “Trump” tip to US intelligence
18 Jul and before: Trump under surveillance
19 Jul: Papadopoulos, after ongoing communications with the Russian MFA contact, emails Trump campaign about surrogates attending the meeting if Trump is unable; Trump wins Republican nomination
Aug ’16: Bruce Ohr advises FBI/DOJ of potentially fraudulent nature of Steele dossier
15 Aug: Trump campaign advises Papadopoulos to make the Russian meeting trip if feasible (meeting did not take place)
September 2016 – Stefan Halper pressures George Papadopoulos on Russia in accusatory form
Oct ’16: FISA warrant application on Carter Page filedOct ’16: Mary McCord becomes AAG/DOJ/NSD replacing John Carlin
Dec ’16: Kushner facilitates meeting with Russians and Flynn, Sally Yates learns of Flynn investigation
Notable: Relative to the above – be prepared to hear revelations that Jared Kushner is somehow compromised. That is the emerging evidence and it suggests how the President’s enemies could have put the both him and Flynn at ease regarding interfacing with the Russians. Perhaps the President knew Kushner was compromised and played him, who knows? No matter he was assigned the Russia reset project by Trump. It seems that Kushner may have to answer some difficult questions soon. We’ll stay tuned to see if the dog will hunt.
31 Dec: Kislyak calls Flynn, conversation held
Notable: The previous Kushner meeting now takes on new meaning given that it facilitates a phone call between Russian Ambassador Kislyak and Flynn. We call that a set-up or pretext.
Move forward with tremendous and careful discernment as we encroach on the most important period of US history.
Jan. ’17: Obama increases funding by $171m to the WHO as funded and controlled by Bill Gates and China (soured in housekeeping.)
Jan ’17: Obama sought funding cuts at the CDC, which would effectively interfere with pandemic preparedness and response (SOURCE): fiscal year 2015, $414 million cut year-over-year; fiscal year 2017 budget, looked to eliminate $251 million in CDC funding.
Jan ’17: The period of time Christopher Steele states that he deleted all of his Russian dossier files and contents
03 Jan: Trump and Flynn meet and discuss Russian matters, Mary McCord’s first knowledge of the case against Flynn, Loretta Lynch signs Obama’s new regulations for signals intelligence dissemination (SOURCE)
04 Jan: FBI doc 189-1 indicates that CROSSFIRE RAZOR surveillance (on Trump meeting with Flynn) resulted in no subject interview and closed the CROSSFIRE HURRICANE investigation.
05: Barack Obama, Susan Rice & Joe Biden extend a meeting privately to discuss doing investigations “by the book,” Susan Rice issued self-memorialized document meeting, Sally Yates first receives notice of the Flynn case.
Notable: The day-by-day is remarkable here. To begin, Flynn and Trump meet on the 3rd and obviously the meeting was under surveillance because Flynn got to school sick and the 04 Jan report verifies it. Now, he’s sitting in class with Trump and ‘incidental collection’ is in play: A> B> C = A-C. It seems Barry and the boys were in on this conversation since Flynn’s warrant was active upon arrival; heard nothing but still moved forward. Consider where this went.
Two days following the meeting and the day after the dead-end report and Crossfire Hurricane closing, Obama, Biden and Rice extend a meeting privately. Immediately thereafter, Susan Rice issues a self-memorialization email to specifically frame “Russia” contextually relevant to Flynn, Trump and everything else. They did this AFTER knowing Flynn, Trump and Russia was a dead end. Again, see definition for treason.
Most critical to all things, this very moment in time is when Barack Hussein Obama galvanizes his foreknowledge to the entire false flag political construct into the permanent historical record. Thank you Susan.
At this point the ball game is on and everything else that follows is toward the eventual COVID-19 destination.
10 Jan: Buzzfeed publishes fraudulent Steel dossier tying back to John Brennan and his decision to launder the phone intelligence report by including it in the President’s Daily Brief, thus giving the suspected fraudulent dossier false instant credibility in the MSM.
11 Jan: Dr. Fauci publicly stated, “During a forum on pandemic preparedness at Georgetown University, Fauci said the Trump administration will not only be challenged by ongoing global health threats such as influenza and HIV, but also a surprise disease outbreak.” (SOURCE)
12 Jan: The Carter Page FISA warrant was set to expire and required renewal
12 Jan: FBI verified via its sub-source that Steele dossier was fraudulent and was comprised of Russian disinformation (SOURCE), thus eliminating their primary predication for initial impeachment and any warrants to which the dossier may have been attached.
13 Jan: Earlier: MSM coordinated the leak of fraudulent Flynn/Russia so as to preempt the presidential transition meetings in which Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn was a participant
13 Jan: Later: Insertion point for the false flag viral pandemic political construct as occurring during compulsory and legally augmented Obama/Trump presidential transition meetings; thrust Fauci, Birx & WHO into roles.
15 Jan: Phase I China deal signed
24 Jan: FBI/Flynn interview, 302 drafted
January 27, 2017 – FBI interviews Papadapoulos for first time
31 Jan: (08 Nov – 31 Jan Flynn “unmasking requests” and parties making inquiries.
14 Feb: McCabe approves Flynn 302, Page and Strzok texts cite “Also, is Andy good with F 302?” and “Launch on f 302.”
Significantly Notable: TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE 302 WAS WITTINGLY ACCEPTED AND APPROVED BY MCCABE WITH THE WORD ‘DRAFT’ ATTACHED TO IT. This is deliberate for it creates a legal portal to file revised 302s later, meaning it also creates an avenue to literally change the story after the fact. Also significantly notable is the record of unmasking requests referenced against the varied list of requesting parties. Again, the timeline reveals the meaning – the purpose of the unmasking around the late Dec to mid-Jan timeline is to support the fraudulent case for Flynn being compromised by the Russians. This would be accomplished by leaking the findings publicly as a panicked Obama prepared to leave office with more loose ends than an splayed and frayed anchor rope.
15 Feb: Flynn 302 accepted, indicating Flynn’s invitation to the Russian GRU in 2013, which would have been authorized by Obama’s administration (set-up.)
Notable: Here we have the notorious Page and Strzok texts in support of the questionable 302; remembering that Strzok was the lead interviewing agent on the Flynn interview. Take note of the ‘draft’ marker below.
16 Feb: FBI-Papadapoulos interview #2
17 Feb: Papadopoulos deactivates his Facebook account circa 2005
February 23, 2017 – Papadopoulos ceases using his cell number and establishes a new one
May ’17: Zainab Ahmad attends Global Center on Cooperative Security event
08 May: Strzok and Page texts stating “F*CK! Clapper and Yates…playing into the ‘there should be an unmasking request/record’ for incidental collection, incorrect narrative.”
Significantly Notable: Here Strzok and Page discuss specifically CTH’s contention regarding Flynn as a subject relative to incidental collection. They identify incidental collection as the incorrect narrative meaning that Flynn was an subject for an active FISA warrant.
17 May: Robert Mueller named Special Counsel, Zainab Ahmad member of initial legal team
Notable: “Zainab Ahmad, a member of Mueller’s legal team, is the former Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of New York. As pointed out by Blackburn, Ahmad attended a Global Center on Cooperative Security event in 2017. In recent days, Blackburn wrote via Twitter: “Zainab Ahmad is a major player in the Russiagate scandal at the DOJ. Does she work for SC Mueller? She was at a GCCS event in May 2017. Arvinder Sambei, a co-director of the [London Centre of International Law Practice], worked with Joseph Mifsud, [George Papadopoulos] and [Simona Mangiante]. She’s a GCCS consultant.”
“Blackburn told this author: “Zainab Ahmad was one of the first DOJ prosecutors to have seen the Steele dossier. In May 2017, she attended a counter-terrorism conference in New York with the Global Center on Cooperative Security (GCCS), an organization which Joseph Mifsud, the alleged Russian spy, had been working within London and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.”
31 May: Flynn 302 re-entered at FBI
Notable: The reentered Flynn 302 on 31 May (as noted in the image above) removed the ‘draft’ marker thus allowing for a retro-fitted change to the fact set. It was a deliberate maneuver or a set-up.
27 Jul: Papadopoulos is arrested
30 Oct: Papadopoulos pleads guilty
30 Nov: Flynn signs guilty plea as accepted by Judge Ruy Contreras
Notable: This juncture is important. Notice how Flynn’s signed confession occurs AFTER the ‘DRAFT’ 302 was accepted accepted and then refiled thus establishing a revised fact set. Further down, you’ll note were two revised 302s were inserted again after the fact. The word ‘draft’ was never ‘inadvertently’ anything rather deliberate the entire way. Nefarious and tedious!
Look where it goes. Look whom happened to sit on the FISA court, oversee the Flynn case and then recuse unexpectedly and without explanation. This is entirely reflective of two things: the jig was up and Contreras was in on defrauding of the FISA court upon which he sat. They removed him quietly so as not to rock the boat. Never interfere with an enemy in the midst of self-destruction. Rudy in hot water with the rest of them.
07 Dec: Judge Contreras recuses without explanation to be replaced by as corrupt Judge Emmet Sullivan.
12 Dec: New Flynn Judge Emmet Sullivan orders Mueller to surrender exculpatory (to Flynn’s benefit) to Flynn’s defense team
31 Jan: Mueller orders delay in Flynn sentencing
14 Feb: Mueller requests that Flynn exculpatory evidence (of benefit to Flynn) to be sealed
Notable: Here Mueller is taking a deliberate step with Flynn’s due process by seeking to seal away known exculpatory evidence. That’s how traitors work.
08 May: President Trump abandons Obama’s (JCPOA) Iran deal
26 May: Chinese national with bio-materials and a centrifuge at airport in Detroit (DTW)
17 Jul: Mary McCord/James Comey meet re: 11/15/17 302 (?)
Notable: Come enters the picture with McCord and despite research, we’re unable to identify the subject for 15 Nov 17 302.
28 Nov: U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents at Detroit Metro Airport (DTW) stopped a Chinese biologist with three vials labeled “Antibodies” in his luggage
17 Dec: Judge Sullivan receives 2 filed redacted versions of Flynn’s original 302, as ordered and received from the undersigned Mueller and Brandon L. Van Grack.)
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14189784/dan-coats-trump-director-of-national-intelligence-dni-russia VOX/ODNI highlight yellow quote
-End/Flynn Timeline Insert-
11 Sep: Chinese national with 8 vials at airport in Detroit (DTW)
13 Nov: DOJ/FBI Tactical Intelligence Report> China<>WMDD<>US (*ancillary intelligence report marked ‘FISA’)
15 Nov: Opening of ‘Public Health Advisor/Quarantine Program’ position post (closes 15 May 20)
17 Nov: Revised (backwards) 1st COVID-19 case: Wuhan, China
05 Dec: Pelosi authorizes drafting of Articles of Impeachment
09 Dec: 21 vials stolen> Boston/Logan Intl. bio-hazard
10 Dec: Boston/Logan Intl. bio-hazard/China arrest, Nadler> AOIs
13 Dec: Nadler’s Judiciary Committee votes to impeach
18 Dec: Full House vote to impeach Trump
27 Dec: Initial (original) 1st COVID-19 case: Wuhan, China> 17 Nov
15 Jan: House: AOIs>Senate, impeachment managers announced, engrossment ceremony, Trump/Xi sign Phase 1 trade deal
16 Jan: Senate formally receives AOIs
20 Jan: 1st COVID-19 case: US, Senate receives AOIs
21 Jan: Senate votes on trial rules, FAUCI> COVID NOT MAJOR THREAT
22 Jan: Senate trial> prosecution opening arguments
23 Jan: Senate trial> prosecution opening arguments
24 Jan: Senate trial> pros. ends opening arg., Loeffler begins dumping stock
25 Jan: Senate trial> defense opening arguments
26 Jan: Senate trial> defense opening arguments
27 Jan: Senate trial> defense opening arguments
28 Jan: Senate trial> defense ends opening arguments
31 Jan: Bolton witness debate, Feinstein begins dumping stock, TRUMP RESTRICTS CHINA AIR TRAVEL
05 Feb: Senate acquits Trump
13 Feb: Burr dumps stock
11 Mar: Pandemic/emergency declaration, (DONE IN 30) > to 12 Apr.
12 Mar: Trump orders and takes-out Iranian commander
15 Mar: Saudi Arabia> mass arrests (SA –> US –> Asia –> EU), Fed rate cut, FAUCI> ABC> 21 million coronavirus hospitalizations, up to 1.7 million dead
19 Mar: Lock-downs begin
24 Mar: DHS essential personnel moved to NORAD
25 Mar: HHS OIG announces it will investigate Trump over COVID-19
27 Mar: National Guard called-up, Trump nationalizes GM, stimulus passed
28 Mar: Projected beginning date for virus peak
29 Mar: FAUCI> REVISION> 100s of 1000s dead, millions infected, Pelosi/attack>DJT
30 Mar: Projected that banks would close> did not happen
31 Mar: Trump tweets “30 Days to Slow the Spread” > 4/30 > 5/1
01 Apr: Schiff> 9/11 style COVID-19 commission, Military> cartels
02 Apr: Pelosi> oversight investigation> Trump ongoing pandemic response, FAUCI> CALLS FOR NATIONWIDE LOCK-DOWN
03 Apr: Projected that markets would close through 13 Apr
10 Apr: Projected worst day 1
11 Apr: Projected worst day 2
12 Apr: Easter Sunday – POTUS’ initial objective end date
13 Apr: INITIAL PROJECTED END-DATE (now revised farther ahead)
30 Apr: Extended ended date for federal guidelines – 30 to slow/done in 30
01 May: Projected end date for virus peak
23 May: Lock-downs begin to relax
06 Jun: Lock-downs end
11 Jun: Identified date / significance unknown
Drink your Moonshine…
It’s good for the TRUTH.